I am currently leasing a TLX and most likely will get a crossover in late 2017/early 2018 when my lease is up.

I am curious about rdx competitors like the x3, q5, glc, nx.

Has anyone owned these models or know much about them?

I really like Acura design and effiency so would lean towards Rdx.

 

Around then the RDX will be around the release of the 3rd Gen.

 

I test drove the Audi Q5 a few times, and liked it. I ended up going with the RDX because of more rear seat room (the Q5 has a hump on the middle seat floor for the driveline), and reliability, in addition to the fact that I could get the top of the line fully loaded RDX for the price of a base Q5 with a 4 cyl engine. I prefer a 6 cyl. To get what I wanted in the Q would have jumped me up about 7,000 over what I got the Acura.

 

Agree, we have both and while the Q5 is more expensive, it is right now a more solid car. We have the v6 diesel and it pulls like a little bear! Mileage is far better than the RDX as well as the AWD system. Would I do it again, we will see what its reliability is and what Audi does to it regarding the diesel scandal!

But it is a solid car, no tiny sounds anywhere. Am enjoying it much more than the RDX and its thumping shocks in the cold!

The hump doesn't bother us, as we are empty nesters! It is in a different league from the RDX at this level of trim.

Agree the 4 cylinder didn't impress me much, but the diesel does!

So far more problems, electrical gremlins with the RDX than the Q5. We will see.

Cheers

 

I owned a Q5. Nice car. But the turbo 4 was no where as smooth an engine as the RDX 6. The Q5 also had several annoying rattles that took a while to sort out. Plus--it used a bit of oil with very low mileage which concerned me. I then swapped it out for a fully loaded A3 sedan which had lots of problems with build quality. The brand is suffering due to the scandal and trade in values are being affected. I've owned my last Audi.

 

I recently bought a NX200T F-Sport. I very nearly bought the RDX but I decided against it and got the NX.

I made a lengthy post in the other thread explaining why: https://acurazine.com/forums/second-...-sales-940544/

 

I am going to give you an advice.
I owned a 2013 RDX tech for 19 months. I was not happy with the performance of the VCM (creating bad vibrations at low and highway speeds that dealer claimed was 'normal specs'), jerky trans in stop/go traffic, and sub-par suspension. The V6 works quite nice at full 6 cylinders mode though. The NAV is very slow and atari-like. The backup camera is terrible.

After this time, I decided to dump the RDX and for that I test drove a X3 and Q5. The X3 won and I was given a very good price so I traded the RDX by a 2014 X3 (premium pkg + Driver Assistance pkg + Lightning package).

In my opinion both the X3 and Q5 are vastly superior to the RDX is almost every area, except price. I see (unfortunately now) that the 2nd generation RDX is for soccer moms, while the germans offer a very sporty package. If you have the $, go for a x3 35i m-sport or a SQ5.

Before the RDX I would consider the the MKC w/2.3T ecoboost, Ford Edge Sport with 2.3T ecoboost.

Note: Lexus or whatever but the NX f-sport is too fugly for my taste and the GLC is for soccer moms [style-wise]

 

LOL wrong segment for sporting intentions. The crossover market is saturated with midsize vehicles offering slightly higher ride height and more cargo space to get from A to B. Going to come down to what OP prioritizes and what his wallet is willing to drop.

 

Several flaws in Mindanalyzer's logic, who sounds exceedingly sour on his ownership experience.

A rather vast cost disparity exists between the RDX and the comparative Q5 and X3 models. Somebody could suggest looking at a Porsche Macan or even Cayenne S, if they want a better vehicle. (Those two models simply blew me away!) There's good reason buyers set a budget or targeted price point.

I drove various iterations of X3's. They drive quite nicely, suitable for all types of driving. The price differential for me exceeded $8k, while the seven year cost of ownership added more of a gap. In my town, plenty of soccer moms drive X3's, Q5's, MDX's, etc., but more opt for minivans and inexpensive SUV/CUV's. That's a very wierd criteria for choosing a vehicle.

Plenty of little gripes about the RDX for me. Nothing mechanical or performance-wise, tho. Very dependable and troublefree for two and a half years of ownership. Never underestimate reliability for a car you plan to keep for at least seven years. Hard to find a better value.

 

2015 or 2016 a3?

 

Dark Knight--it was the 2015 A3. With all the technology, etc. Fun to drive--except when it wasn't.

 

Not true at all, the crossover segment has many sporty vehicles, some handling better than most cars. You must have never driver a 1G RDX, macan, sq5, cayenne turbo, x5m? Furthermore, why does Acura show the current RDX and MDX on a race track in their commercials?

The current RDX is a doughy sponge. Nothing even remotely sporty about it. A complete mom wagon. For a brand that built their reputation on offering buzzy nimble cars, they have strayed immensely from their roots. They are going towards luxury, but really offering half warmed over premium versions of the nearest honda cars that are also barely adequate compared to their competition. You guys will say, well it is 10K cheaper than its' competition. To that I say it feels 10K too expensive.

 

I have a 2014 RDX Tech and I found the rear camera very good.

The trans isn't the greatest but I learned how to drive it smoother. I felt it was very jerky when I changed from 07 TSX to 14 RDX

 

It really depends on your priorities. You had bad luck with your Acura so that clearly clouds your perception. I had bad luck with my BMW (as did hundreds of other 335 owners) that soured my opinion of BMW in the US - but - the fact remains that the Germans build a technologically superior product that is often over-engineered (think about the battery registration requirement) and has significantly higher costs of ownership even if you disregard the higher acquisition costs.


For $850 I can buy a maintenance package for the Acura that'll pay for all routine maintenance for 5 years or 60k miles (i.e. longer than the warranty) so if you add that to the basic cost you are still a used Civic away from the cost of a BMW.


BTW, where did all of the 2007-2009 3 series go? You see older, and newer, 3 series on the road but very few of that date range - maybe because a used Yugo was more reliable?

 

Have you had the opportunity to drive other vehicles with TRULY GOOD backup cameras? Good or bad sometimes can be a relative concept. I always thought the RDX camera was adequate until I could experience the X3 camera [in all conditions: snow, rain, night, fog]; Now maybe if I try the Porsche macan S camera I could change my perception on the X3's

 

BTW guys, have you checked the coming 2017 Tiguan (European version). It looks like a mix between a X3 and a Q5, at VW pricing

A winner in my book

2017 Volkswagen Tiguan: Redesign Info, Pricing, Release Date

 

It was very clear to me the Porsche cars are superior to just about everything else on the road.

Equally clear was the cost: Purchasing, Insuring, Maintaining.

Value always brings Honda products to the top of my list.

When I was shopping, there were many vehicles that seemed to have an edge on the RDX. They were all 10 to 30 K more expensive too.

 

I mentioned this in another forum, I for one am very very excited for this new tiguan, though that front end....will take getting used to!

I am excited for the gte!!

 

I think that it looks good from everywhere. I am very [positively] surprised that VW came up with something like this ...

The GTE concept looks awesome

 

I need to see it in person first. I have been a fan of all gens of tiguan so far. Love the 2015 R-Line model as well. I usually love VW front ends instantly...this one is taking time. Maybe I need to see it in the flesh.

But that rear end...DAMN!

 

No, I haven't. I agree with you that there should be a better one. The cars that you have mentioned are more expensive and I would definitely expect same or better rear camera quality! But I can tell you that I've seen worse ones. Cameras are cheap these days. It's obvious manufacturers are squeezing every penny to their profit.

 

For my taste, the Macan and Cayenne just look far superior to any other CUV. So elegant and cleanly styled. Especially in a time when over-styling (think Lexus NX) is new in-thing.

 

Then of course the question is "how good is good enough?"


Do you need 24 megapixels or is some sort of low res good enough? Do I need to discern different blades of grass or do I need to know if I'm backing over a kid on a tricycle?


What is more important is what manufacturers are doing to keep the lenses clean and unobstructed and if their low-light capability is sufficient for me to see that tree stump or parking barrier.

 

1+ to this. I would love to have a retractable camera for RDX. It's mostly useless in rain otherwise. I believe the Germans have it sorted on that front.

 

I didn't get RDX this time around because it lacked 8 speed transmission.

I went with TLX but really want to get a small SUV/CUV next time.

 

Though I usually agree with you 95% of the time. This time I strongly disagree. You are missing the principal of the idea. It isn't about having a camera good enough to see individual blades of grass. It is about paying more for a "luxury, or more correctly, premium product" and getting a backup camera with poorer quality than a common hyundai or kia. What is even more aggravating about it, is that backup cams have been on cars since about 2002-2003. And the backup camera on a 2013+ vehicle should be at least better than a camera from around that time. My 07 RDX has a camera of comparable quality to the 2016 loaner I had. That isn't right.

It is simply a cost cutting attempt. Somewhere where they really shouldn't cut costs.

 

The backup camera in my common KIA is quite a bit better than the one in my RDX was. It's like comparing HD TV to color TV circa 1968.
I like how the guide lines curve in the direction that you are steering as you backup. Very handy.
Honda will likely rectify this in the next generation.

 

That wasn't a dig at kia, I actually REALLY like the 2011-current sorento, sportage, and optima. My point about the common kia, was to say that a car that starts at 13k (forte) has a better backup cam than a 45k acura.

The backup cam on my relatives 2011 sorento was REALLY good. Super super crisp. Puts many cameras to shame!

 

I understand. I wonder if the 3 way view function resulted in the lower video quality, might have been a compromise.

 

You make a good point, but the acura backup cams were shit even when they didn't have that function.